It is my opinion that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has been highly critical of the St. Louis Metro Police Department’s recent handling of protests that broke out following the acquittal of an officer charged with first-degree murder in the 2011 shooting of a man involved in a vehicle chase. The verdict spawned days of peaceful protests that led to increasing violence.
The newspaper leveled a number of charges against police, while at the same time downplaying attacks on LEOs. A look back at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s coverage of these protests—both reported pieces and editorial—reveal a perceived bias against law enforcement, in my opinion. While this may be fine in an editorial piece, which is colored by opinion, it’s absolutely improper in reported pieces. Straight news should never be slanted.
But upon further research, I’ve found that the media isn’t the only factor in the disinformation soup surrounding this story. The St. Louis Metro Police Department has some serious communications problems of its own.
Numerous stories reported that a newspaper photographer heard police mimicking demonstrators’ chants with calls of, “Whose streets? Our streets.” While one report said police denied the allegation, others mentioned that additional members of the press and officers reported hearing the chants as well. A low-quality video posted online may back up or help dispel the allegations.
In search of the truth, I went to the sources for answers. I contacted an Associated Press reporter who mentioned it in one of his stories and he confirmed that one of their photographers, as well as other members of the press corps nearby, heard the chants. I do not doubt his honesty.
I then contacted the St. Louis Metro Police Department’s press office and received this response: “The Department is aware of the video, involving chanting, circulating on social media, and is reviewing the footage. We hold our officers to the highest standards of professionalism and any officer not meeting those standards will be held accountable.”
I had asked her a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. Was it true? Her response was the kind politicians give to sidestep issues. It told me nothing. At that point, 11 days had passed since the incident. In an agency full of individuals trained to investigate complex cases, why were they being so coy about this relatively minor charge?
In my professional experience, law enforcement agencies don’t establish good relationships or rebuild confidence this way. Police agencies need partnerships with both the press and the community in order to be successful. Replying to questions with meaningless double talk only succeeds in making the agency look guilty—of both the accusations and of trying to obscure the truth. It also takes a small incident and allows it to grow like a tumor. Total honesty from the beginning would have put this in the rear-view mirror.
Don’t do this. As a strategy it’s divisive, unsuccessful and polarizing—and that’s the last thing police organizations need right now.
